This is Hate Speech

“Fox News should be shut down and Hannitty (SIC), Beck, Savage, O’Reilly and Limbaugh should be indictedas (SIC) accessories to murder…That’s because the Right has all the SCUM and Fox News riles them up by bypassing thinking and discourse for appeal to the above emotions. FOX News ansd ABC Radio are the equivalent of Goebbels and the Ministry of Propaganda-and they will continue unless stopped-period.” – Blogcritics Commenter

If it is hate speech to attack someone on the basis of their race, or their sexual preference or their gender, why is it not hate speech to attack them on the basis of their political associations or affiliation?

At the root of the idea of hate speech is the principle that you are judging someone unfairly and expressing a hatred for them which they do not deserve as individuals. It is the idea that just because some black men are criminals you call the whole race criminals, or that because some gay men are pedophiles you condemn them all as pedophiles, or because some Jews are wealthy you condemn them all as misers. This is bigotry and it can be expressed as hateful speech.

If you accept this premise, then why is it not just as much hate speech if you call all white men racist because some white men are racists, or declare that all members of a political party are homophobes because some are homophobes, or condemn everyone who wants to change government a terrorist because some wish to change government by force? Shouldn’t these people be judged as individuals for their actions rather than for the dubious ideas of other people to whom they have only the most superficial connection?

In a nation where we have guaranteed freedom of speech, how can any kind of speech be a crime at all? Yes, it is a crime if you kill someone or encourage others to kill someone, but it cannot be a crime to criticize the actions or beliefs of others. That makes a crime of opinion and a crime of thought and a crime of dissent. That’s the worst form of oppression.

As demonstrated in the quote above, there are many in this nation who desperately want to silence dissent and to criminalize any ideas with which they do not agree. If there is a hate crime in a nation where we have rights guaranteed in our Constitution, shouldn’t the greatest hate crime be the desire to take those rights away? Free speech is the first of those rights for a reason and attacks on it are inexcusable.

Someone who hates free speech hates liberty and if you hate liberty then you hate every person in this country who wants to be free. You attack everyone who would like to be left alone to live their life in peace. You express a willingness to punish thought and impose your model of the world on others against their will through the coercive force of the state. You place your opinion ahead of the rights of others and that kind of selfishness is inexcusable in a free society — not that you want a free society. You want to be free to do as you please while others also do only as you please—your idea of liberty is pure selfishness.

The person who would shut down a radio station or a television network or a journalist hates the very principles America stands for. Whether the target is Julian Assange or Rush Limbaugh or some guy at a Tea Party with a stupid sign, the principle is the same. If you are willing to take away their rights then you are willing to take away everyone’s rights. You are a bigot, and even worse you become a tyrant when you ask government to enforce your bigotry with the power of the law.

Someone who bombs a television station or shoots a talk show host has committed a terrible crime and should be punished. The action of closing that station down by government force or silencing that host with the threat of legal action should be just as much a crime, and if not punishable by death, it should certainly never happen in this country and those who advocate it should be reviled for the hatemongers they are.

Before you start condemning others for their speech, take a close look at the hate you’re spewing and think twice.

Like this:

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.

Dave, you have masterfully exposed the hardline leftists’ attempts to create separate classes of “free speech” here, exposing them for the crypto-totalitarian thugs that they are.

Great work.

Clavos

Dave,

You write:

“In a nation where we have guaranteed freedom of speech, how can any kind of speech be a crime at all? Yes, it is a crime if you kill someone or encourage others to kill someone, but it cannot be a crime to criticize the actions or beliefs of others. That makes a crime of opinion and a crime of thought and a crime of dissent. That’s the worst form of oppression.”

And you are dead on with that point; for if we begin to demonize opinion, thought and dissent, we descend into a nightmarish reiteration of the Soviet Union or the Third Reich; we begin to bring to fruition the very horrors that Huxley and Orwell warned us about.

And yet, in your opening paragraph you invoke one of the most pernicious concepts ever perpetrated by the left in this country, the idea of “hate speech.” Is the concept of hate speech not an attempt to demonize (and punish) thought and opinion, a la 1984 or Brave New World?

Kenneth Pakal, aka “Frequency”

As demonstrated in the quote above, there are many in this nation who desperately want to silence dissent and to criminalize any ideas with which they do not agree.

That quote demonstrates no such thing. You cherry-picked one outrageous comment out of a thread of more than 50, and overreacted to it as if that guy represents more than just his own warped ideas. Get a grip, Dave.

So if I was reckless enough to brave being irradiated or intimately groped by strangers and enter the former land of the free, then go stand outside, say, Dave Nalle’s house abusing him and his family, would that be acceptable freedom of speech as well?

As to Joseph Cotto’s partisan remark – there are idiots all around the political spectrum and if you still see any contemporary political issues along old style party political lines, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

All kinds of political parties are doing what politicians do, pass more legislation.

What we need on a global basis is a completely new politics that rejects such superficial and irrelevant notions as contemporary party politics, gets rid of maybe 50% to 90% of all existing law and develops relevant new ideas and solutions to the challenges of the day, which are considerable.

Clavos, whilst I would agree with your general point, I may be mistaken but I seem to recall you doing a fair bit of demonizing of “opinion, thought and dissent” in the past…

Kenneth, I wanted to express my opinion that whilst your aka may once have been witty and entertaining, it isn’t working any more, so how about you dial it down to 0Hz?

As to your point, Dave Nalle indeed has a history of making up not only online identities but also provocative statements like this.

Although his head is hopelessly confused and not just a little back-dated, his heart is in approximately the right place. He may not have much of a grip, but he is at least groping around the right area…

Clavos: And yet, in your opening paragraph you invoke one of the most pernicious concepts ever perpetrated by the left in this country, the idea of “hate speech.” Is the concept of hate speech not an attempt to demonize (and punish) thought and opinion, a la 1984 or Brave New World?

Well, since that’s the position taken by the left, I have to start from their premise. I do go on to reject it in the 5th paragraph.

Kenneth: That quote demonstrates no such thing. You cherry-picked one outrageous comment out of a thread of more than 50, and overreacted to it as if that guy represents more than just his own warped ideas. Get a grip,

Why would I want to respond to an example which doesn’t prove my point? If all the comments were rational there would be no issue.

Chris: So if I was reckless enough to brave being irradiated or intimately groped by strangers and enter the former land of the free,

They’ll only do that to you when you try to leave, so if you stay you’ll be ok.

then go stand outside, say, Dave Nalle’s house abusing him and his family, would that be acceptable freedom of speech as well?

Putting aside the fact that if you did this on a public street where your rights are protected you’d be too far from my house to be seen or heard, yes you’d have that right, up until the point where one of the neighbors called the police on you for disturbing the peace and scaring their kids. The cops would probably then tell you to move on, but likely wouldn’t arrest you, but since you don’t have a car when it’s night time and the ice storms start and the packs of feral dogs start sniffing at you, you might take the cops up on their offer of a ride to a hotel.

But in this circumstance my proper response would be to put a sign in front of the house saying “Caution, Ranting Idiot at Work” and ignore you.

Dave

Arch Conservative

“There are idiots all around the political spectrum.”

There’s no denying that Christopher however none are so loud and vociferous as those on the left who’ve pulled off the nifty little trick of convincing a large number of people that they are actually mainstream.

Arch Conservative

To illustrate the difference. Bob B or whatever the name of the guy he was quoting is advocated the state removal of a media outlet for the mere fact that the socieconomic views that said media outlet espouses do not conform to his own.

There’s nothing that irritates me more than that delusional, hyporcitical rabid moonbat Keith Olbermann reading one of his teleprompted tirades but I have never called for MSNBC to be shut down nor have any of the other “right wing nuts” on this site that I can recall.

So who would you rather throw in with when the going gets tough Christopher? People like myself and Nalle or that jackhole he was quoting (what the hell is his name anyhow?)

Boeke

On the left side I see an unnamed anonymous person being nasty about rightists. As far as I know he has no political, or other, power.

On the right side I see national persons, many highly cherished by their constituencies and very visible, many actually on the government payroll, who are outright calling for the murder of American citizens that they personally disapprove of. And besides the famous incitement by Sarah Palin for her disciples to use “second amendment” remidies for her woes, we have these famous rightist characters:

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and ex-Pentagon official KT McFarland were among those claiming the guilty party should face execution for putting national security at risk by leaking the inflammatory information.

Mr Huckabee, who is believed to be ready to renew his candidacy for the next presidential election, said responsible for the leak should be sentenced to death.

He said: “They’ve put American lives at risk … They put relationships that will take decades to rebuild at risk. They knew full well that they were handling sensitive documents, they were entrusted.

“Any lives they endangered, they’re personally responsible for and the blood is on their hands.”

KT McFarland, who held national security posts under the Nixon, Ford and Reagan governments, backed the calls, saying Private Bradley Manning – the chief suspect of leaking the files – should face treason charges and possible execution.

…

The comments came as a former adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, suggested a different solution to the international diplomatic crisis – assassinating Mr Assange.

Prof Tom Flanagan said Barack Obama should “put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something” to rid the world of Mr Assange.

As the anchor on the CBC news programme warned him that his comments were “pretty harsh stuff”, Prof Flanagan responded that he was “feeling very manly today”.

He rounded off his interview by claiming the leak of the documents could “conceivably lead to war,” adding: “I wouldn’t feel unhappy if Assange disappeared.”

Prof Flanagan was speaking on Tuesday evening, after the second day of WikiLeaks revelations from US State Department documents.

the people responsible for leaking the information deserve to be hung for treason.

In Assange’s case, he’s not an American and so he has no constitutional protection. Moreover, he’s going to get a lot of people killed. Can we do anything legally about someone from another country leaking this information? Maybe not. Can we have a CIA agent with a sniper rifle rattle a bullet around his skull the next time he appears in public as a warning? You bet we can — and we should. If that’s too garish for people, then the CIA can kill him and make it look like an accident.

Either way, Julian Assange deserves to die for what he’s done and he should be killed to send a message loud enough to convince other people not to publish documents like this in the future.

The moral compass of the Right is reducible to the myth of American exceptionalism, the imbecilic idea that America, as originally conceived, stands head and shoulders above all other nations, that American interests override all other interests, that “We the People” – and the Right claims the exclusive title to this noble-sounding phrase – can do no wrong because our Constitution is our blueprint, the principles we live by. Little does it matter that our brief history has effectively disproved all such claim and shown us to be no better than any other nation present or past. The Right still believes because only through such believe can it validate itself. Also, little does it matter that the Right feels outraged at its own government for real or perceived offenses against “We the People.”

Hence the paradox: the Right is the most vociferous proponent of the very same government, the government it despises, when it comes to promoting American interests worldwide.

What might surprise some of you is that I am no fan of Mr. Assange. I think he’s a grandstander and/or very naive about how government and international politics/diplomacy works. I agree that there should be more transparency (the “in” word for now) in some things, but making everything open to public scrutiny would cause much of international relations and commerce to come to a screecing halt. I don’t like Assange, but I don’t think he deserves execution.

It was not Palin who spoke of “second ammendment solutions,” it was Sharon Angle. Palin may have repeated it, but, if memory serves, it first came from the sage lips of Ms. Angle.

Given yesterday’s tragic events, though, it becomes clear that the level of vitriol, and the ad nauseam use of violent rhetoric and imagry is promulgating more and more senseless violence. I agree that there are nutballs on the fringes of the entire political spectrum, but most of the above has come from the right pretty much ever since Obama threw his hat in the presidential ring.

BTW – Olbermann may be over the top and is certainly bombastic in his demeanor and delivery, but he is also – far more often than not – spot on.

Also – surprise again – I pretty much agree with Dave who properly kept partisanship out of his article – although he fell back into it in his comment.

Dave, I see you’re still trying the old selective answering or smart alec answering techniques to evade rebuttals of the large amounts of drivel you spout that obscure those small glimmerings of constructiveness we glimpse from time to time. Pity.

As to staying in the USA, there was a time when I seriously considered that, although it wasn’t this century. Now I wouldn’t even go there for a holiday unless it could be done without flying in or out.

Arch: “none are so loud and vociferous as those on the left who’ve pulled off the nifty little trick of convincing a large number of people that they are actually mainstream”.

As I’ve not noticed them, it can’t be true that they are louder or more vociferous, not that either of those two things are actually illegal or anything.

I don’t understand your obsession with the media, particularly those on the left whilst you largely ignore or apologise for those on the right. They all just do their jobs of pandering to the audiences their advertisers want to target.

The real scumbags are those in politics of the left and the right who aren’t living up to their responsibilities towards we the people, which is happening pretty much across the political spectrum and all around the world.

I don’t know Bob B or Keith Olbermann but, again, tilting at the media is pointless and mistargeted.

As to throwing in with you and Nalle, I doubt that could ever work, no matter how tough the going got. You guys are way too subjective and shifty for my liking, although if you both let go of your personal, political and media hangups there might be hope for you yet.

Baritone: more often than not we tend to agree but on the subject of Julian Assange I strongly disagree.

I don’t think he is grandstanding at all, nor would it matter if he was.

Making everything open to public scrutiny – not that it would actually be everything of course – is generally a good thing.

It wouldn’t actually cause anything to come to a halt, people would just adapt, grow up a little bit and get on with the things that had to be done.

The level of honesty, integrity or even simple respect for the meaning of words in public affairs and debate over public policy is at what seems to be an all time low.

Assange and other like minded people are more akin to Facebook like openness or open source technology, which includes wikis of course, whereas the majority of governments the world over are becoming more like Microsoft, Apple or Adobe with their closed autocratic systems.

El Bicho

Kenneth, keep posting your entire name as you like. It’s much better than the writer who feels the need to mention she has written a book every time she leaves a comment.

Dave, I see you’re still trying the old selective answering or smart alec answering techniques to evade rebuttals of the large amounts of drivel you spout that obscure those small glimmerings of constructiveness we glimpse from time to time. Pity.

Christopher, I answered the only part of your comment which had substance and was vaguely interesting. I’m under no obligation to respond to the rest of your pointless and generally ill-informed babbling.

Dave

STM

Although my favourite one is when those who oppose gun rights are targeted by the right as un-American and by the slightly less-loony right as anti-constitutional … for exercising their constitutional right to free speech and their natural right to express an opinion.

And Clav asks: “Is the concept of hate speech not an attempt to demonize (and punish) thought and opinion, a la 1984 or Brave New World?”

No, it’s a nod to the idea that whatever might be contained in the constitution (a document written by a bunch of old blokes 200 years ago, not a tablet from God) or the writings of those who championed natural rights, that there might be other natural rights.

Possibly, they might include things like not becoming the victim of violence because of comments made by others, or not having your life, career, and wellbeing put at risk on the whim of someone who thinks they can defame you because they believe gossip or innuendo to be the gospel truth.

It’s always worth exploring what OTHER rights people might have, apart from those written down on pieces of paper and made law.

Question: since when is it a natural right not to be offended? Since when is it a crime to speak, oh well, like me? Just kidding – I think – sort of.

Let’s get something straight here, the so-called crime of “hate speech,” is pure intellectual and philosophic fascism, just as is “political correctness” from which it is spawned. They are tools of true believer totalitarians, who almost entirely hail from the liberal-left.

Have you people not ever heard of such anti-freedom of speech and anti-inellectual freedom and anti-debate concepts and doctrines such as “chilling effect” and “prior restraint”? Well that is exactly what hate speech and politically correct speech are, they are in fact weapons used by true believer, totalitarian fascists to stifle and kill speech – not to protect and or engender and or promote it.

That’s one of my main complaints with the Blogcritics Comments editors, they seem to be consistently on the side of political correctness and hate speech as a weapon to silence people like me. And have done so consistently and rather arbitrarily and capriciously so in my own personal, individual case. And as evidenced within these very same threads, they have consistently defended and apologized for and promoted their double-edged sword of political correctness/hate speech.

Dear dave, I recall reading an article of yours a few weeks or months ago in which if I am not mistaken you complained about some issue or other in which you brought up the issues of freedom of speech and intellectual freedom and how others were stifling and jeopardizing it. Well, I wanted to comment and tell you that you were quite right, but that if you really wanted to address these issues and to be vigilant in opposing these anti-intellectual, anti-freedom of speech and anti-intellectual issues; you had better look first into your own backyard, into the intellectual slime-pit of left-wing fascists at Blogcritics, and especially of the cabal of the British comments editors, fascists.

But I didn’t because of the “chilling effect” of being deleted and erased and or disappeared out of existence. Yes, I admit that I was a coward, but I also was afraid that I might offend you by bringing the fascism of the comments editors to your attention – I mean I reasoned to myself that they were still your colleagues, and no matter what your relationship with them, for me to do so would actually be in rather bad form.

Nevertheless and in spite of me – keep up the good fight Dave, cause you’re doing a good job of it..

And as were very wont and fond of saying in the “Corps” – “kick ass and take names” too.

Clavos

Stan sez:

Possibly, they might include things like not becoming the victim of violence because of comments made by others, or not having your life, career, and wellbeing put at risk on the whim of someone who thinks they can defame you because they believe gossip or innuendo to be the gospel truth.

Stan the key word above is “defame.” It, and its companion, “slander” are already well addressed in US law; both are illegal and subjerct to penalties under the law.

The concept of “hate speech” (and ITS companion, “hate crime”) are at best, specious. As currently used in US jurisprudence they serve no practical purpose, but are simply tacked on superfluously to other crimes which are already addressed and defined.

STM

Irv: “Question: since when is it a natural right not to be offended”

Who’s talking about simply being offended? We’re going a bit beyond that here.

Then again, who says it’s not a natural right not to be offended.

I have a pretty good memory of school playground justice at my all boys’ school: You offend me once too often, you run the risk of getting a smack in the mouth. Thus ensuring that next time, you might think twice before you open it.

In those cases, Irv, I’m afraid I DID believe it was my natural right not to be offended by idiots.

STM

G’day Clav … good to get you out of the woodwork. How’s it all hanging??

In regard to the comment, though, I’d have to agree to disagree. There IS a case for the idea that purveyors of hate incite others to violence, which means when the violence is committed, or preparations are made to commit violence, they too are culpable.

Clavos

Arguable, Stan, and damn near impossible to prove under the law.

In any case, that’s not what the concepts of hate speech and hate crime attempt to address — at least not here. At present, they are tacked on to a crime such as murder (usually very arbitrarily) so as to somehow cast the murder in a more heinous light. Of course, that idea ignores the fact that the victim of a murder is no deader than the victim of a stray bullet during a bank holdup.

As I said, specious.

Clavos

Sorry, mate, got a little engrossed in the discussion. I’m doing pretty well, thanks. Just returned from a couple of weeks in Minneapolis, at my sister’s house, followed by a visit to Austin to attend my niece’s wedding — both places were a lot colder than Miami — glad to be back, I drove around all day today with the top down on the car.

Dear comrade, commie-ilb/simp, etc., etc., ad nauseam, you know the fucking drill by now, so up against the wall motherf…..r, wait a minute, wrong drill, never mind STM,

By the way, what the fuck does STM stand for? Perhaps, could it possibly be Sanctimonious, Tow-headed Moth……r? Is that it? Please inform, cause I”d really like to know.

As for schoolyard bullies, I didn’t fend them off by smacking them, which I find to be rather gay, which I understand today means “faggoty” – you know the stuff of sissies -rather I beat the fucking snot out of them – usually – and on occasion had the living shit kicked out of me as well. Let’s put it this way, on the ledger sheet of ass-kicking and thumping and lumping, I was on the plus side of dishing out lumpings far more than on the negative side of the balance sheet.

For you see, I must confess, that that schoolyard bully you speak of, was usually me. So as a former schoolyard bully I take great umbrage to your smacking the likes of me – I mean as a deterrent, because I don’t know if it would have worked with me because I was a real neanderthal, knuckle-dragging troglodyte, mean, kick-ass m…….rf……r and most likely would have beat you to a fucking pulp.

But let’s not get too personal here.

Question: is it therefor a natural right to cause someone to become, let us say, euphoric? Or, what about to have someone, hey, let’s shitcan the bullshit and just cut to the quick here – is it a natural right to compel and force someone by social convention or the force of law to be a sycophantic toady, yes man to my every capricious whim and desire? Is it a natural right to pout petulantly and hold my breath until I turn blue, unless and until I get my spoiled, worthless way, or unless I am not patronized and placated, or falsely praised and have my worthless ass kissed and kowtowed to as much as I should wish or desire? Tell me oh wise, STM, what the fuck exactly is a natural right?

And also tell me how “hate speech” and “political correctness” which must needs be imposed upon others, is somehow a natural right? Tell me how imposing one’s will upon another or limiting their freedom of speech or of their attitudes towards others, or their freedom to think or associate with whomever they wish, or to think whatever they damn well please, tell me how your limiting and squashing these inalienable rights somehow constitutes what a natural right is, how it somehow becomes your natural right and not someone else’s?

Let me see, your point is that you smacked those idiots who offended you until they got the message. Good, I would expect as much from a real man or woman, or person. But is that natural right to self-preservation and self-defense, and the defense of one’s own personal space, and of one’s self and sense of being and personhood, is that consistent with hate speech and political correctness as equivalents and therefore as natural rights?

The point which I’m attempting to make, and appear to be doing in a rather piss poor fashion, is that hate speech and political correctness are not natural rights. The right to think, the right to speak freely, to worship God, to a free press, the right to assembly, and several other rights of this nature, all of these are true natural rights. Everything else however is either a need, a desire, a whim, a caprice, etc.. Again, yee old “potential optative.” And a need, an optative, a desire, wish, etc., is never a true right, natural or otherwise. And that is what hate speech and political correctness are. Get my drift [personal attack deleted]?

Dave: if you really think your unfunny and generally weak attempts at humour were anything like an appropriate response or that you did indeed answer the only part of my comment “which had substance”, then you really are even more dense than I originally thought.

I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but, as you seem so completely wedded to your little pet notions and unable to see anything outside them, I’m going to move you to the same mental category as the faithists and other pre-programmed types of people. Congratulations on becoming the latest living pre-programmed automaton.

Well done also on such a very prolonged and very public display of your arrogant, empty-headed posturing here at Blogcritics; what is it, seven years now? I’m sure your digital legacy will serve you equally as well in your personal life as your “professional” one.

Irv: Attempting to stop hate speech is “fascism”? Calm down old boy! You’re really being a bit of a tool yourself if you believe such hysteria. Be careful or you may get lumped in with the other androids like Ruvy and Nalle…

I was, for once, going to respond to your wilfully inaccurate depiction of our comment management but as you made no coherent point at all, I hazard the assumption that you are merely exercising your right to blow hard. However, do feel free to contact me if you actually have anything substantive to say at any time.

Stan: once again you make more sense than most. Why do you think it is that your country is generally so much more sensible than the USA? Could it be that Australia (unfortunately died by cricket, R.I.P. 2011) has benefited from its closer relationship with the motherland than those wayward rebels? 😉

Clavvy: Why do you think hate speech is “damn near impossible to prove under the law”? It doesn’t seem that much more difficult than any other crime, especially when there is audio or video evidence.

Do you not think that murder committed out of some pointless prejudiced hate or rage is worse than some other types of capital crime?

Irv: For fuck’s sake! Do you always use 100 words when 10 would do? Anyone would think you were a fucking philosopher!

That said, “The right to think… to speak freely, to worship God, to a free press, the right to assembly, and several other rights of this nature, all of these are true natural rights.” Are you sure?

Surely any natural rights would have existed prior to we humans even developing the power of thinking, which many alive today have clearly not yet got the hang of, never mind the other “rights” you mention.

To rebut just one, god as a monotheistic concept has only been around for about five or six thousand years but we humans have been here for over 200,000 years. Was it a “natural right” to worship it before we made it up?

Get my drift [personal attack deleted]?

I’d also like to see you substantiate your line that gay somehow equates to cissy, which just seems like more ignorant crap to me. If you knew many gay people, you would find that they don’t conform to such stereotyping anyway, but don’t let reality impinge on your thinking, it might be traumatic…

Surely any natural rights would have existed prior to we humans even developing the power of thinking, which many alive today have clearly not yet got the hang of, never mind the other “rights” you mention.

lmao! That is good.

Clavos

Why do you think hate speech is “damn near impossible to prove under the law”? It doesn’t seem that much more difficult than any other crime, especially when there is audio or video evidence.

Because, Chris, using the example of the role allegedly played by Sarah Palin’s infamous cross hairs in this incident, how do you prove that there is a connection? Unless the perp actually says he was influenced by Palin’s advertising, to say he was is pure conjecture and unprovable.

Do you not think that murder committed out of some pointless prejudiced hate or rage is worse than some other types of capital crime?

No I don’t. The victim is not more dead. In this country at least, the majority of murder victims are killed by close associates, usually family members, and often in a domestic dispute — essentially “in a rage.” How is that any worse of a crime than the victim who is killed because he resisted an armed robber? Or the victim murdered for his sneakers? In the final analysis, murder is murder — the “why” of it is irrelevant to the result.

Punishment for crime usually only deters the individual who committed the crime, and then only because he is incarcerated or executed, thus removing the opportunity to re-offend. That is even the basic argument used by those opposed to the death penalty, so if it’s true, where is the advantage to society in deeming a murder a “hate crime?”

We can all make up examples that prove or disprove any point, Clavvy, but I don’t think your example supports your contention that hate speech is “damn near impossible to prove”.

In the Palin example, what did she actually say? If it was as provocative as that other woman’s “Second Amendment solutions” then it quite possibly is incitement, which is a crime and quite rightly so.

As to hate murders, is there much difference in practice between hate and rage?

You say “How is that any worse of a crime than the victim who is killed because he resisted an armed robber?” To which I would ask if you think a homeowner who kills an intruder should then be treated in the same way as someone who kills out of racial, political or even sexual hatred or rage?

I disagree with your view that punishment usually only deters individual perpetrators in the way you outline, particularly in the case of capital punishment, although I am opposed to that. I think punishment clearly deters many currently illegal activities.

The advantages to society of deeming a murder a hate crime include a clearer recognition and understanding of motives and events; that certain behaviour is unacceptable in society just as it is in a family or social setting and that such behaviour can be dealt with, albeit in some as yet imperfect way.

Boeke

Irvin Cohen, in #22, makes himself out to be a very unpleasant fellow. To what purpose, one might ask? Is it to intimidate others so that they won’t argue with him? Is this a bullying attempt, much like veiled threats of violence in the suggestion of “second amendment solutions”?

Clavos

In the Palin example, what did she actually say? If it was as provocative as that other woman’s “Second Amendment solutions” then it quite possibly is incitement, which is a crime and quite rightly so.

Except, Chris, that absent a confession, you cannot prove such incitement. It’s bad law that is largely unenforceable and likely unconstitutional.

You say “How is that any worse of a crime than the victim who is killed because he resisted an armed robber?” To which I would ask if you think a homeowner who kills an intruder should then be treated in the same way as someone who kills out of racial, political or even sexual hatred or rage?

Of course not. He who kills an intruder in his home shouldn’t even be charged with any crime, but that doesn’t nullify my point. If I’m killed by a lefty who hates right wingers, how is that any worse (especially to me) than being killed because I refuse to hand over my wallet to an armed robber on the street?

If we’re going to get into such shaky law, how long is it before we tart prosecuting people for what they think? Vote for a Republican, you’re obviously not a loyal adherent to the dictum of Political Correctness, so you get busted. Meh. The concepts of hate crime and hate speech both tread very close to that already.

I disagree with your view that punishment usually only deters individual perpetrators in the way you outline, particularly in the case of capital punishment…

Actually, that’s the POV of most Americans opposed to the death penalty, I do not believe that — I think it provides some deterrent, and even if I’m wrong on that, I still believe in the death penalty because execution damn sure deters the individual who is executed.

The advantages to society of deeming a murder a hate crime include a clearer recognition and understanding of motives and events; that certain behaviour is unacceptable in society just as it is in a family or social setting and that such behaviour can be dealt with, albeit in some as yet imperfect way.

Well, hell, Chris, murder (your example when we started this discussion) is already sanctioned, and if the penalty is either execution or life without parole, how the hell are you going to punish (and therefore deter) further by calling it a hate crime?

Case in point against the concept of hate speech: comment #28. This Boeke is trying to cast Irv’s ridiculous bombast into some sort of actionable “hate speech.”

Clavos: A confession by the perpetrator you mean? I would have thought it would come out as they talked with the suspect how he came to be where he was.

If someone has, even unwittingly, influenced Loughner down the path to his actions by their exhortation to or encouragement of what I guess are now going to be known as 2nd amendment options, I think they have to be held accountable for their words.

As such, I don’t see how it is bad law or unenforceable and I’m not really bothered if it is unconstitutional or not on two grounds; 1 – I’m not American and 2 the US Constitution and most laws, rules and regulations all around the world are either dated or bloated and in need of some serious updating to reflect the world we live in, not the world of hundreds of years ago.

Apart from biographies and the like, pretty much anything non-fiction written before, say, the early 20th Century is pretty dubious stuff that just doesn’t cut it in a world where over 90% of everything we know is more recent.

As to the homeowner example, if they killed an intruder when it wasn’t necessary to in order to capture them or hold them or even eject them from the building, that is absolutely freaking definitely a crime.

It is also puzzling that you don’t see any difference between quite different contexts. Killing somebody for their views is a completely different kind of crime to a robbery gone wrong. You seem to be trying to make all examples of killing equivalent, an oddly un-nuanced view I could never support.

I don’t think this is shaky law at all – and your attempt to inflate it into a scenario of punishing people simply for what they think or how they might vote is just silly alarmism. At this stage at least, and I don’t think hate speech laws represent a slippery slope either.

Slightly tangential, but I’d be more worried about the 90-odd government agencies created for your security and protection if I was you. America has become a darker and less free place over recent year and unfortunately dragged many other countries, both larger and smaller nations, in its wake.

I’m amused to find that I disagree with American opponents of the death penalty on the deterrent value of capital punishment – and therefore agree with you about that – whilst completely disagreeing about your support of the death penalty, which I am opposed to in all circumstances as a matter of ethics and principle.

I agree that the USA has got itself into a right old pickle by only having execution or life without parole, oddly permanent solutions in a country which, in name at least, professes to believe in that most forgiving and loving of people (or symbol) we know as Jesus.

Your timeline is all mixed up though; a hate crime would obviously be called a hate crime at the time it was reported, during the investigation and the prosecution, so it is obviously a massive deterrent. Further punishment of the perpetrator isn’t relevant here.

Your case in point is pretty bogus. Irv is often unpleasant and does try to bully and intimidate people, much as he did at school if we are to believe his recent revelation, albeit with all the effectiveness of a eunuch at an orgy, and Boeke merely pointed this out. To suggest that his or her words were an attempt to cast his words as “actionable ‘hate speech'” seems a bit of a stretch to me.

I hope I’m wrong but I’m left with the impression that you are opposed to such laws in principle, which I think is seriously unrealistic.

Sure, there is a risk things could go to far, as they have in so many areas of the USA’s heavily and excessively regulated and policed society, but we are a long way from there right now…

Well, Roger, as far as I know Ms Giffords hadn’t identified herself as the Antichrist or announced her intention to overthrow the US government and install herself as Empress For Life, so yes, Loughner’s actions were disproportionate and he does qualify as a confused loony.

Clavos

As to the homeowner example, if they killed an intruder when it wasn’t necessary to in order to capture them or hold them or even eject them from the building, that is absolutely freaking definitely a crime.

You missed my point. In not a few US jurisdictions, including Florida, if you invade my home, I have the right to kill you. I support that.

Actually, Chris, as you point out, you’re not a US citizen, so you really have no say in how we deal with our constitution and laws, although you are, of course, entitled to even your wrongheaded (to me) opinion. I wouldn’t presume to impose my idea of the law on the UK. — it’s none of my business.

Slightly tangential, but I’d be more worried about the 90-odd government agencies created for your security and protection if I was you. America has become a darker and less free place over recent year and unfortunately dragged many other countries, both larger and smaller nations, in its wake.

True and deplorable. This is principal reason why I no longer feel any pride in, or loyalty to America. That said, as long as I continue to live here I will vote and argue for what I believe in.

Your timeline is all mixed up though; a hate crime would obviously be called a hate crime at the time it was reported, during the investigation and the prosecution, so it is obviously a massive deterrent.

Many criminologists disagree, insisting that NO punishment serves as an effective deterrent, and for proof they point to rising crime rates in virtually every permissive society.

Your case in point is pretty bogus. Irv is often unpleasant and does try to bully and intimidate people, much as he did at school if we are to believe his recent revelation, albeit with all the effectiveness of a eunuch at an orgy… (emphasis mine)

Exactly my point. Irv’s comments are nothing more than ridiculous bombast and verbal diarrhea, “full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.”

…Boeke merely pointed this out. To suggest that his or her words were an attempt to cast his words as “actionable ‘hate speech'” seems a bit of a stretch to me.

…Is this a bullying attempt, much like veiled threats of violence in the suggestion of “second amendment solutions”? (emphasis mine)

Sure sounds like an attempt to escalate the importance and intent of Irv’s comments to me.

I hope I’m wrong but I’m left with the impression that you are opposed to such laws in principle, which I think is seriously unrealistic.

I clearly haven’t expressed my position well if you’re merely “…left with the impression…” I absolutely am opposed to such laws in principle — not only for the reasons I’ve outlined, but also because, despite your scoffing, I do believe that such laws open the door to an escalation of such ideas to the point where government (already way too powerful) could begin to use them as a springboard for dictating which ideas are acceptable and which are not.

And that would be about as unconstitutional as we could get.

Finally, I think you are far more trusting of governments than I, Chris — I trust them not all and am a strong believer in watching them closely and stopping every attempt they make to consolidate ever more power — which they do incessantly all around the world.

…where is the advantage to society in deeming a murder a “hate crime?”

There is none, but people who are clearly unable to control the pathology created by the system some other way typically resort to the tactics of the very system that is beyond their control, and is causing the problems in the first place, by simply making a new law.

As if the actual problem is that no one has ever made a law that covers the matter. (Oh, I see someone has forgotten to make a law against acting on your hatred.) That is not problem. Making more laws to try to get people to be ‘mentally healthy’ is like dealing with a snow storm by making it illegal to snow.

I love the [unintended?] self-commentary provided by the title of this article: like 90% of Dave Nalle’s writings, it is based on hatred of one set of ideas [which he falsely caricatures as belonging to “The Left”] while pretending to champion “liberty” — but only liberty as he narrowly and ideologically defines it.

I do agree that hate speech is best fought through non-hate speech [or in some cases by simply ignoring it] — not through legislation.

But the caricature of “The Left” constantly promulgated by Dave, Clavos, and others on this site is off-target, gratuitous, ridiculous, offensive, etc.

Kamikaze pilots, for instance. Besides, I’m making a distinction here between fanaticism, even passion, and plain craziness. The latter can be properly explained away by reference to individual idiosyncrasies, not the former.

My main objection to lumping all these together strikes at a kind of denial, suggesting there is no rationale, no rhyme or reason, no causes behind such actions (simply because they don’t accord with what accepted as conventional behavior governed by accepted norms).

Hatred is a common enough human emotion – not just a reflection of insanity, however much we may abhor it. And yes, people can hate their government, or the good ol’ US of A, hate enough to give up their own lives.

So again, relegating such actions to the realm of mere personal is a form not facing up to certain realities, namely, that however remotely, there is a justification of sorts; it’s to assert that our world view is the only one possible or sane, that to deviate from it constitutes a derangement.

I have already weighed in on Sarah Palin’s target advertising in the NYT and elsewhere. There is seditious speech but no laws against it in the US. The reason for that is because of the enforcement issues such laws would create.

This thread is an exercise in freedom of speech. But there is freedom from speech, such as slander and speech of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger, both of which is subject to litigation, one civil and the other criminal.

I agree with Dave’s point that hate speech is an expression of bigotry. I also concur with his statement that “you become a tyrant when you ask government to enforce your bigotry with the power of the law.”

Let us remember that as the Republicans, especially in Arizona, try to exercise that bigotry with respect to immigration law.

Roger, it is possible to be completely barking tonto and still be able to rationalize one’s actions.

The kamikaze are a special case, though. It can be argued that the kamikaze strategy was a last resort. It was certainly an act of military desperation.

Boeke

Clavos #29 is obviously wrong: I never said or implied that Irvs statement is hate speech.

Why do you say bad things about me?

In fact, I don’t even think that “hate speech” can be unambiguously identified, and therefore legislated. IMO all such attempts are doomed.

But what we can do is to recognize what each of us think is ‘hate speech’ and report our feelings to interested parties. I have no problem telling someone who says something offensive that I find it offensive. Do you? I have no problem telling friends and family that I found someones comments offensive. Do you?

IMO we should speak out. Trying to legislate ‘hate speech’ is, in a way, a cowardly way to do something in the secrecy of the voting booth that we are afraid to do in person.

When Palin and Angle made the comments they did I openly expressed my alarm to people around me. I don’t think that people like that really understand how alarmed people become when they hear that and that they become defensive and stand against what they hear and who says it. So the attempt to intimidate and bully fails in the end and just becomes a reason for people to attack the speaker.

Your use of the term “rationalize” trivializes it. I spoke of there being certain justification, a different thing entirely, yet still subsumable under the rubric.

Acts of terrorism are acts of last resort and desperation. There’s a certain logic to it, and it’s not lost. Same with actions of Julian Assange, an anarchist at heart though, to his credit, he won’t admit it.

Irv: “As for schoolyard bullies, I didn’t fend them off by smacking them”.

Geez, Irv, try to understand that the US isn’t the only place where English is spoken. I’d hesitate to suggest Australians are subtle, but any discussion of impending point-of-fist physical violence probably doesn’t need to take place at all.

And if it does, the Aussie: “Do you want a smack in the mouth, mate?”, to my mind sounds much better than the American: “Hey, you motherf..ker asshole, I’m gonna beat the crap out of you *once I stop talking about it and actually get on with it*”.

A smack in the mouth Down Under means a hard punch – or five – with a closed first.

I hope – for your sake – if you ever come here, Irv, you don’t tell somone they’re gay because they want to give you a smack in the mouth.

(Not that there’s anything wrong with that)

Although this whole thing does add more weight to the widely accepted view that when it comes to actually being tough when it counts, most Americans make good talkers and bullsh.t artists.

Dear doc-tah most esteemed and exalted comrade, commie-lib/simp. etc., etc., ad nauseam; but wait a minute, please allow me this new and improved, additional moniker/epithet of “associate, assistant, co-editor of intellectual and philosophic fascism at Blogocritter-land-o-world”; but not quite done yet, for here’s yet another moniker/epithet, which darn it, you might not find as abusive as the former, well here it is, “misanthropist” which should read just simply “misanthrope”; and so finally the end of this salutation, doc-tah drearinessful hisself;

RE your thread # 41.

“J’accuse (vous)” of being an outright thief and of trying to purloin my thunder and of brazenly plagiarizing me of my own well earned and well deserved moniker/epithet of extreme “misanthrope.” I do hereby object and in utter tantrum-like form, do throw a thoroughly apoplectic hissy-pissy fit herein. Look here, when it comes to misanthropy, I am, bar none, the biggest, baddest, meanest motherfucker on the block. Got that mergatroid? Have I made myself abundantly clear and unambiguous enough? Or what?

Irv … The Battle of Brisbane during WWII, when two days of brawling broke out between Australian and US servicemen in the Queensland capital after a US MP assaulted a US servicemen who had been drinking with Aussie soldiers. Brisbane was the stepping off point for those bound for the south-west Pacific war.

The well-documented official accounts always go something like this: “One Australian servicemen was shot dead, eight suffered gunshot wounds, 10 were treated for baton wounds and head injuries, while several hundred American servicemen were treated for head injuries, cuts, black eyes, split lips, teeth/mouth trauma, broken bones, abrasions and severe bruising”.

I don’t know what that says, but it says something. Not one American shot!

Well, let us say that all this Sturm und Drang of yours concerning your smacking someone in order to prove your masculinity and how manly you truly are; and then my impolitic, uncivil and insensitive comment referring to this as “gay”; well, let us say that all of this is simply just a matter of a simple cultural misunderstanding on my part.

Wait a minute, goddamnit, I left the word “manifestation” out of the mix. My God, what an egregious error on my part, cause how are all these intellectual, super brainiacs at Blogo-criterr-o-land gonna possibly understand their own manifestation and being? Sorry bout that! Really! But got to continue.

Yes, I am certain that as a real live Aussie fear-inspiring, trepidation causing he-man, that you are first and foremost one bad-ass, romping-stomping, kickass motherfucker. But secondly that when you say “smack” someone , that you actually mean to say “knock their fucking teeth out” and do so with plenty malice aforethought. And of course, surely not to gently swipe them with your rather colorful, dainty and delicate, expensive, designer purse.

Of course not, cause wouldn’t want to damage or scratch our simply divine, rather expensive, designer, delicate and dainty pursey-wursey! Now would we?

But comrade STM, if you want to gently hit America upside the head with your simply divine, expensive, delicate and dainty, rather colorful pursey-wursey – please, be my guest and feel free to slappy-wappy us all as much as your little ‘ol pink heart wants

So go at it mate. And slappy-wappy us to your heart’s content.

Dammnit! Left out the word manifest again!! You know Roger and Cindy and Glenn et al, et al, just can’t live without it.

Jesus Christ, you goddamn Aussies really do stick together, don’t yahs? Now in addition to all the commie-libs at Blogo-critter-world, both here and in Europe, I now got another goddman continent who hates my guts and wants to kill me. Hey I forgot Latin America – that makes four continents who hate and want to kill me.

I dare say that is a lot better than Kurtz, how many fucking continents does he have who truly hate, despise, loathe and detest him?

Just one question, where do I sign up and enlist, mate? Yeah, me too, I wanna be part of the lynch mob to kill ‘ol Irv the Perv too (that’s also “Irv le peurve” in French as well).

And for the sake of completeness, let me blurt out the word MANIFEST lest Roger, Cindy and Glenn, et al, et al, not understand.

How truly right on you truly are! Yes, your implication that the riots at Brisbane were an American, right-wing, reactionary plot and conspiracy to kill Aussies is absolutely true. How do I know this for a fact? Because I was there!

Furthermore I’d also like to declare that there is nothing whatsoever which is apocryphal or questionable about your numbers and description of those events – none whatsoever! And you know how I know this for a certainty? Because I was there!

And furthermore, yah wanna know sumptin’ I know all this because I was the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, reactionary, extra “Y” chromosome, knuckle-dragging, neanderthal, troglodyte conservative who gave the order to fire.

I said boys. “don’t fire until yahs see the whites of them-thar eyes o’ theren” well actually the pink of their eyes because they’d been drinking so much goddamn warm, room-temperature beer that their eyes had turned red. Man, they was sloshed.

So I ordered my men to shoot “the dumb, drunken sons-of-bitchs between the fucking eyes.” Sorry bout that, mate. I guess, my bad.

But you see the problem was that my boys was just as sloshed and just as out of their gourds and out of their minds too, so that they couldn’t shoot straight, not a lick’s worth. Otherwise the corpses would have been piled high and deep. Sorry bout that mate. Again, my bad.

So why don’t you mate, why don’t you and I just hold hands together and sing kumbayah! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

STM

I didn’t say slap Irv, you American drongo.

I said smack. Rhymes with whack.

And unlike many of our believe-their-own bullshit cousins over the big pond (that’s you and yours, Irv, BTW), we are people of action, and very few words.

America is a nation founded and run on a load of hot c.ck and bullsh.t.

We have your measure …

STM

Irv: “Because I was there!”

No you weren’t, Irv. You wouldn’t be able to type now if you were. You can’t type with broken fingers.

STM

Also Irv, where did you get the idea that Australians drink warm beer.

That piss is for Poms and Euros.

STM

Actually, Irv, on a more serious note. I can’t really see how the right is getting blamed for the shooting in Arizona. It’s obviously a fruitcake with a gun.

However, it’s always worth having the debate in regard to whether we’re all getting so uncivilised and our political views so polarised – on the left and right – that something like that might result from an extreme political view.

I’m sure in this case it was a nutcase, but there’s something to be said for accepting for accepting and living with the view of the majority, even if you don’t like it.

Luckily, everyone in our shoesn only has to wait a couple of years before we can exercise our right to change it.

Other methods of expression or protest don’t work, not if you want to topple US government.

Or didn’t pay attention in geography?

Other methods of expression or protest don’t work, not if you want to topple US government.

Can you honestly say that terrorism is a resoundingly effective method of toppling a government? I can think of one possibly successful example, and that was the one that resulted in the formation of the State of Israel.

And no, I’m not contradicting myself.

Even if you were, you could always fall back on Walt Whitman: “I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.”

Irv, check back through past comment threads. I have consistently opposed excessive censorship of comments and in particularly the practice of imposing an inconsistent standard on the basis of ideological bias which you correctly point out.

Chris, I’m not writing for your benefit, and if what I write irritates you or fails to resonate with you, or draws your derision, then that makes it more likely that people whose opinion I actually care about will appreciate it.

Dear comrade, etc., etc., op. cit and a lot more infective and as you previously cited, thread # 63, “Now, back to the name calling…” Well, I say let the fun and games begin you goddamn, Aussie, lowlife, scumbag, leftwing cretin from a long line of inbred, mongoloid, slimey-limey criminals, deadbeats and sociopaths, of a decidedly liberal-progressive, commie-lib/simp, commie, lefty pinko, Marxist religiosity and persuasion; and oh, did I mention the cardinal sin and utterly venal crime of wanton obscurantism too? ett-set-terrah, ett-set-terrah, ett-set-terrah.

I can’t begin to imagine for the life of me, why most of my posts or comments herein haven’t been deleted entirely, not in part, but in entirety so far. That has been my past experience with the comments editorial staff, intellectual and philosophic fascists of Blogcritics. The way I see it, is that perhaps, just perhaps, they are just slightly cowed by my arguments for more freedom of speech and less censorship, especially of such an arbitrary and capricious nature as theirs has been – not only of myself, but of others. My God they recently expunged a comment of Roger, not that I like or admire that intellectual fraud and charlatan, but even he has the intellectual freedom of speech to make his intellectual masturbation, lame-brained, commie-lib, Marxist-anarchist comments too; but back to this rather harmless and innocuous comment of his in which he returned a happy New Year salutation to Cindy (another lame-brained commie-lib/simp, Marxist anarchist brainiac). Well the idiots deleted it entirely!

What the fuck was the reasoning and ethos of that? Now to be fair, there were three of his which were expunged and deleted in their entirety, just as there were three of mine; but come on, wishing Cindy a happy New Year in response to her greeting, come on what are these fucking brainiacs (that’s a euphemism here for morons) thinking?

Now, as for your serious, supposed side; that is to say, your profound heavy-osity alter ego; welllll, what a joke; hey give me a fucking break will yah. Actually you raise a very important point , but the commie-lib streak in you, won’t allow you to think reasonably and correctly, because you make a proper point then in typical commie-lib, knee jerk reaction you automatically defend your momentary lapse of heresy and apostasy with “yes…but.”

Look here, the Greeks had a favorite saying, (again, I’ll spare you the actual Greek) “nothing in excess” which throughout the ages has been translated as and also has evolved into “all things in moderation.” So my own kneejerk reaction is to say, no, let the debate take place, and let the chips fall wherever they may or is that? might.

But then again a large part of me says, hey wait a minute, what if someone talks like me with Tourette’s Syndrome, and is rather creative in his or her choice of rather juicy, choice Anglo-Saxon profanities and obscenities as lil’ ol’ moi, me, myself and I am so often fond of uttering. Wouldn’t that, nay, doesn’t that tend to diminish and lessen the debate, to contaminate and pollute and demean it too? To coarsen and to debase and devalue it?

Well, again, “all things in moderation.” But in the final analysis I would rather err on the side of more debate than less. I also maintain that the comments editors go too far to one extreme, in fact to the farthest extreme of censorship. Well, again, I say more debate and less censorship.

But allow me these questions: Who is to guard the guardians? Who is to censor the censors? Who is to watch over both of these who hold our intellectual and philosophic freedoms solely in their own hands rather than ours? Where is our recourse to redress, our ability and capacity to openly debate and question our censors? I have written three very long rebuttals and all three have been deleted and expunged in their entirety. Where is my redress, where is yours? Where is the intellectual and philosophic duty and responsibility of the censors to be open and intellectually honest and to exhibit a modicum of intellectual integrity and to be forthright and transparent in these attributes?

Enough of this, that is, for the time being.

But to finally answer your initial point and question of toning down the rhetoric etc.. Well, to be brutally honest, I do not see this as a right-wing thing, but rather I see this as a left-wing thing. It is de rigueur and it is over forty years old, in fact it is more than a century old and can be traced to the very beginnings of liberal-progressivism et al. My problem with the Paul Krugmans and Keith Olbermanns of this world is that they are guilty of liberal, intellectual and philosophic fascism and fascistic McCarthyism. They attempt to demonize and criminalize conservative thought, to cripple dissenting voices and eliminate them entirely from the debate. Let’s face facts, “tone down” is a code word of the left to shut people up like me, to silence us and our dissent and that of others too. They don’t want true, legitimate, bonafide debate; but rather they want to monopolize it, to have one side and only one side heard and voiced – theirs and theirs alone. Well that’s intellectual fascism plain and simple.

Yes there are deep cultural, and to appease and placate many of the lefty, professorial, academic and overly pedantic, brainiac assholes of this world, there are also many other factors at play here too, such as psychological, anthropological and sociological factors, and oh did I mention, the word and term manifestation too? But in the final analysis it still remains a matter of intellectual and philosophic freedom and of unfettered, legitimate and bonafide debate; and not one of censorship and less freedom and less debate.

You know, I can live with his petty and snide, smarmy and snarky insults, and his condescending, supercilious, know-it-all pretenses at wisdom and wit; but it’s his two faced hypocrisy and his intellectual fascism which eats at my crawl.

Here’s this guy who censors and deletes the shit out of me on the most flimsy of grounds and on the pretense of my insulting every fucking body (which I do not do, I only insult just most of these fools, buffoons and clowns); and then he’s got the utter gall to insult both you and I, on what you rightfully and correctly point out, are ideological grounds; which again, is the stuff of pure, intellectual fascism plain and simple.

Look here, I am not offended by insults, I am a big boy and I don’t have to be protected from Alpha-male assholes such as myself. But like Archillochus, one of my favorite poets (I’ll spare you the Greek); “I know this one great thing, he who does me wrong (or literally speaks ill of me) I will heap upon him very evil reproaches.” And just as Dr. Samuel Johnson, I am also very loathe to suffer fools too. So I simply answer and respond to these in kind.

If one checks out my comments, one will or should clearly see that that is my pattern and modus operandi. So if one wants to know whether one is an asshole or not, then please engage me in debate. Or whatever you think passes for debate.

Again, I agree with your article and your thread # 66, which I somehow overlooked while I was writing my # 67.

But Dave, I must ask you a favor, please allow me to insult you viciously lest I appear an overly sycophantic suckup; as well as to keep up my “misanthropic motherfucker” creds here as well. So fuck you Dave and your libertine-arian bullshit too. There I said, it. Please be annoyed and quite angered so that I not appear to be the cringing, fawning, brown-nosing, kiss-ass suckup that I truly am. Got to keep that a secret.

Dave: Thanks for demonstrating again how completely and utterly you simply don’t get it.

Personally I would be slightly embarrassed and a tad ashamed to be so determinedly and proudly behind the political beat, like some doddery dad at a disco, but wear your 40 year old badges with pride and don’t worry about what those pesky kids are doing. A lot has changed since you and Al Gore invented the internet…

I know it is probably in vain, because your own beliefs are even more firmly entrenched than a faithist’s (as you appear to mistakenly think your positions are entirely rationally attained), but let’s at least go through the motions.

The fact that you have consistently opposed excessive censorship of comments is irrelevant posturing on your part because they are hardly being censored at all, never mind excessively.

As you should well know by now, because we have been over this so many times, the comments are mostly only edited for very slight reasons of good manners (which is very broadly framed so as not to exclude the oh so mature and thoughtful input of chaps like Irv), plus a few other minor points that are covered in the comments guidelines.

Moving on, I was actually very surprised by your assertion that you are not writing for my benefit. Indeed, I rather take offense at being excluded.

As a non party politics kind of person, I accept input from a broad range of sources as a matter of principle and find your inability or reluctance to engage with people outside your little clique potentially quite dangerous.

If you are only going to address those “whose opinion I actually care about”, then your audience will be small and your cause lost. Is that part of some grand plan of posturization, if that is a word, or are you actually really serious about liberty?

Are you then only willing to talk to your fellow travellers, smug and safe in the knowledge that your actually dated political grasp will never be challenged?

If so, you are definitely participating in the wrong site and should confine yourself to the fairly tragic site you call Republic of Dave.

There you can probably get away with making bogus statements like “as a libertarian, I am chronically sceptical of the efforts of government” whilst actually participating fully in the political process, far more so than most citizens.

You don’t even have the political integrity not to play the game you profess to despise so much, merely posturing as a supporter of liberty whilst actually supporting the Republican Party, which is even more troubled than its opposition.

It is the political process itself that is in trouble, not the left half of the process, as are the main political parties in many countries all around the world due to bad faith (nothing to do with you, faithists!) politics.

Irv: Your impromptu campaign to be considered the political and commenting equivalent of Animal from Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem is really starting to pay off for you!

I hope you are enjoying your dream that the comments editors are “slightly cowed by my arguments” but alas that isn’t the case.

Any time you want to turn off your high volume (in both senses of the word) “transmit” mode and use that large wrinkly thing in your head, you may actually get a clue.

As always, feel free to email me directly if you do ever have any grounded issues or questions about the comments space.

If you can actually show me specific examples of comments wrongly being deleted I will reinstate them if I accept your point or explain to you why not.

As to your broader, quasi-philosophical (Hi, Roger!) musings about who guards the guardians, if you do ever actually have a genuine issue about a particular comment edit or deletion decision I have made and are unhappy with my response, I am always happy to refer any matter up the management food chain.

Of course, that does then raise the question of who guards the guardian’s guards, but let’s not go there just yet!

Additional: Irv, your last two comments above appeared whilst I was writing #70, so let me respond briefly.

1. Read #70
2. Please do show me examples of this “two faced hypocrisy” (is there any other kind – three faced perhaps?) or “intellectual fascism” lest Dave Nalle thinks you’re after his informal title as posturer in chief.

As to the meat of your comment, what has effectiveness got to do with it? People do with what they think they must do with resources that are available to them, hardly a controversial proposition, I think you’ll agree. Besides, the question of effectiveness isn’t open and shut; there are different ways of measuring it. And considering the US policy, both at home and abroad, has been defined and driven by “terrorism” – the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security, Iraq and Afghanistan – the jury is still out. What’s clear is that the US (and the West) has expanded far greater resources fighting the phantom menace than the opposition; and that’s one index.

But here is a thought experiment for you. Think of the IRA years. Were you at least partly sympathetic with the cause and why? If you were, wasn’t it because you thought of their objectives as being as least partly legitimate? Well, it seems to me that your present stance on the subject is at least partly determined by how you tend to view the objectives of organizations such as Al Quaeda, Hamas, etc., and their grievances against the West. Thus, national liberation movements are legit according to Dreadful whereas degrading the machinery of the State is a no-no.

Dear most exalted, esteemed comrade, etc., etc., you know the drill by now, so up against the wall, dare’st I say the word, you wanton obscurantist, Rosie-pooh,

I thought I was the brunt of your fascistic censorship and arbitrary and capricious exercise of your officious, unctuous and petty Martinet, personal POWER! The operative word here is “POWER” as in power-hungry intellectual fraud and charlatan you currently are. Of exercising that said power over this petty domain and realm of yours.

Boy was I wrong. Posturer, do you mean poseur? And by calling Dave such, aren’t you really guilty of the psychobabbler diagnosis of “projection”? And as for prolix and verbose as I am often accused, isn’t this rather incoherent ramble and personal diatribe against Dave kind of telling? I mean what’s the fucking point of all this?

I am reminded of Humphrey Bogart’s rambling defense of his character, Captain Queeg in the “The Caine Mutiny.” I am sorry, but I must not only question your intellect, but also your mental stability. And I also must address your intellectual legitimacy as Comments Editor as well. To be rather blunt, I do do not think you are up to the task either intellectually or temperamentally.

Poor Rosie-pooh, it appears you have a rebellion on your hands by these unruly Americans, these so very ungrateful former subjects of yours.

And you know what I say, I say “tough shit.” I also say, well, make that, I also ask thee to do the right thing and simply resign as Comments Editor as well. You talk about “cheek” gall, effrontery and utter “chutzpah!” C’est moi. lil’ ‘ol me, myself and I! However I suggest if you’re greatly annoyed and irritated and personally angry with me, you just fucking sue me, nay, make that just fucking shoot me.

What say you? Is it just to delete this thread entirely, because if that is your sole response and answer, then that in and of itself is as clear a definition of fascism and fascistic censorship as one could possibly provide. And if you do not understand this, that is proof positive of your being thoroughly unqualified to be Comments Editor.

Irv: As far as I can tell you haven’t actually thought at all, just continued down the same predetermined course you took some time ago whilst ignoring all efforts to establish actual communication. Some may conclude that you simply prefer to transmit than receive, which I consider to be some kind of pointless mental masturbation.

To correct some of your latest mistaken notions:- No, I meant posturer, not poseur, which is a French word much loved by a certain type of faux intellectual; I may be guilty of projection in depicting Dave as such but obviously that is not my opinion; I don’t think my remarks to either Dave or you were either incoherent or rambling, unlike some commenters I like to be direct; whether they are telling or not and what they might be telling I leave you to invent all by your self; I’m not defending myself, I’m trying to convey either information or my own opinions, so I’ll leave the Captain Queeg impressions to you; it is a shame you consider me your intellectual inferior and unqualified for this “job”, particularly as you are so nuanced and insightful yourself, but there you go; you may consider this some kind of rebellion if you wish, I will merely confine myself to noting that we have very different ideas about what constitutes a rebellion or what is actually worth revolting about; no Americans have ever been subjects of mine as I am not of Royal blood plus the not insignificant fact that the British Empire pretty much ended before I was born, but well done on the great job you guys are doing on the global stage these days; I don’t “talk about “cheek” gall, effrontery and utter “chutzpah!”, you must be confusing me with somebody else, so please go take your meds before you completely lose it; I am also not “greatly annoyed and irritated and personally angry” with you or any other commenter for that matter, although I would admit to a certain contempt for the kind of empty shell intelligence, to coin a phrase, that passes for much contemporary political and/or cultural commentary; it follows, therefore, that I will neither fucking sue you or fucking shoot you.

Before you go, here are links to some definitions of fascism and censorship; you might like to remind yourself what these serious words actually mean rather than tossing them around like some kind of cultural popcorn…

Of course I have the balls – I have baseballs, tennis balls, wiffle balls, but unfortunately, only one football, you know they are quite expensive and I’m quite cheap.

Gee, I got a question for you, why do you misspell my name as Coh’n with an apostrophe? Is there some cultural or linguistic reason why you do? Or are you just trying to be a facetious, sarcastic, snotty and snarky asshole like me?

“”your (meaning me) impenetrable prose” – does that mean that I do not use the word manifest and its derivatives enough?

Roger, while I understand why certain individuals or groups may be motivated to terrorism, I fail to see how a perceived set of grievances justifies committing acts of terror, particularly against civilians.

I may sympathize with you when you tell me that your doctor overcharged you for a procedure, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to approve if you barge into his surgery with a gun and keep on shooting until someone opens the safe.

My agreeing that there is a case for the island of Ireland to be politically united has nothing to do with a bunch of impatient idiots who decided that blowing things up was a great way of getting that done.

Especially when there were and are people working just as hard to achieve that dream by legitimate, non-violent means.

In fact, said idiots probably set back their own cause by at least forty years.

Perhaps you ought to. But you’re not suggesting now, do you, that there wasn’t any collateral damage as part of the IRA strikes? So where and how do you draw the line then if not, as I suggested earlier, in terms of the kind of movements you view as legitimate and those you do not? You haven’t responded.

Mark

…now now you guys

While his sputter, perseveration and self-diagnosed tourette’s are disconcerting, I do think that Irv successfully spits out an idea or two. And, of course, I appreciate his clingy (to the point that I wonder about some past head injury) assault on you fascist censors.

Now as to your “clingy assault” and the rather long parenthesis contained within those two words. No, I’ve never been physically injured in the head and therefore consequently brain damaged. However i was wounded (in combat) in the right arm; in the middle of the biceps above the elbow down to my finger tips; by several bullet fragments and several other pieces of shrapnel. Now the last time I checked my arm neither my brains nor my soul nor my psyche are, or have ever been located there. In this regard, I strongly suggest that you study some basic, human anatomy.

Comprenez-vous? Or should that be “viszh-stay-a-voo?”

Mark

Rog, I recently got my hands on a pretty sweet octave mando bringing to three the number of stringed instruments that I am committed to practicing each day. I figure that I ain’t got much to offer come the revolution except the song in my heart…

I’m happy it suits your soul. Since I’m not musical in terms of performing, I’m afraid my options are limited to literary compositions. Thanks for participating, though, Maven Raven. I’m kind of disappointed at Cindy, though, because it’s right down her alley; but I guess she’s got plenty on her mind.

Meanwhile, it’s kind of hard to be cranking out these pieces without feedback. We used to have a discussion circle, remember. Now, it looks like it’s gone and that all that’s left is speaking to myself.

“Head banger” ehhh? I”ll forgo that rather snide and adolescent piece of sarcasm and or flippant facetiousness or whatever the f..k it is.

Mark I researched and looked up Mitzvot (Mitzvah in the singular) # 15. My question for you, is if it is a “Mitzvot lo ta’aseh” not to hate fellow Jews, Lev 19:17; then why do so many of my fellow Jewish brethren (and I assume you are one of them); in particular and almost exclusively of a liberal-progressive-leftist, nay, make that a far leftist, commie-lib/simp, pinko-lefty-commie Marxist, mindset and atheistic and highly secular persuasion; why do they hate the State of Israel? And Jewish conservatives such as myself or Ruvy? Or very devout and orthodox Jews as well?

That’s not a trick question, I sincerely am asking you that sans any ulterior motive whatsoever (sans is French and means “without”) – in order to satisfy my curiosity and further learn of this seeming self-loathing and hatred amongst many Jews. I don’t mean that to be a loaded question although it appears to come out that way. But as a fellow Jew (which I assume you are as well) I have personally witnessed this phenomenon in my own life for over fifty years to date.

Intellectually I have delved into this issue through the writings of such disparate authors as Hannah Arendt, Jean Paul Sartre, Eric Hoffer, Elias Canetti and many others. Ironically Arendt and Canetti are themselves Jewish, in fact Canetti barely survived the Holocaust while even more ironically, Arendt was a German Jewess who was also an atheist and a Marxist, who coined the phrase “the banality of evil” which she used to encapsulate and describe the truly vast evil of the Nazis.

Again, no trick question, this; no ulterior motives on my part either; just am curious what you have to say. And no, you don’t have to respond or answer my questions. And no, it won’t be on the mid-term, let alone the final. For that you got to ask Roger.

STM

Doc, Clav: “I can’t recall the last time Irv actually said anything …” “Quoted for truth”.

You have to plough through a mountain of poop to find a gem, but they’re there all right. The odd sparkler in a mountain of brown stuff.

And hasn’t this little thread sparked up nicely over the past few days.

Clavos

Irv,

I’m not Jewish, but my best friend is, and he’s a liberal Democrat. He doesn’t hate Israel — in fact, he’s quite well off and annually makes substantial contributions to the Technion and other Israeli institutions he values. Further, he travels to Israel regularly, almost always leaving substantial chunks of cash behind in the hands of said institutions.

However (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?), he IS of the opinion that Israeli leadership has been deficient for years on the issue of the Palestinians. He believes the Israelis should make more effort to make peace with the Palestinians — even to the point of ceding them land (I told you he’s liberal, didn’t I?).

Mark

Irv, I have a Christian mother and am agnostic (faithless and unable to worship a god of war and vengeance — unfit for conversion) so I don’t qualify. I do take religions seriously, however, as their dogmas are so often matters of life and death.

Perhaps the problem of Jewish ‘self-hate’ stems in part from (a misunderstanding/misapplication of?) the law become tradition requiring Jews to demand righteous behavior from one another. Leftists are thus caught in the contradiction of the times.

We only got outta the hospital for the final (crosses fingers) time two weeks ago. Went back three times after the last stay of a month. We are on the road to recovery now. Soon cardiac rehab again. He is getting quite strong!

Also, I got hubby a kitten. Turns out she has ring worm. She is a tiny little nightmare who hates me and has scratched me and bitten me fiercely whilst I prevented her escape. She needs to be bathed 3 x week with special shampoo and has required me to substantially stimulate the economy to both vacuum and purify the air with hepa filter technology and to keep her safely confined in a way that is comfortable and visible. My mom, who laughed her head off on the phone about my being scared of a 3.6 lb 9 month old kitten, will straighten this all out when she arrives. (Thanks for moms!)

haha Roger. I can’t let her near him (the ring worm thing). But I got her because his own kitty was a tiny little persian who loved him and hated me at first until she got a taste of my kitty massage skills 😉 used to lie in wait and try to kill me when I walked by. Her last owner had declawed her or I’d’ve been shredded. She definitely was competing.

yeah, boys are lovies…I miss our two guys. Though I understand a cat of the Ragdoll breed is very human oriented, even when female. This little snip needs a friend. When she was escaped, I happened to watch Cutest Cats of 2010. It brought her out meowing and trying to climb into the TV and standing up touching the screen. She finally gave up trying to get into the TV and laid down on the carpet and watched the whole show. I will get a Ragdoll sort to be her friend (and then I can have a kitty who is a snuggler, which is what I like).

In his time with us he has frequently railed against so many different people; Americans, American Jews who aren’t interested in moving to Israel, the British, everywhere else in Europe too, Palestinians, Arabs in general, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Christians, Muslims, liberal Jews, the wrong kinds of Jews – by which I think he means not traditional believers, gay Jews, the city of Tel Aviv (which he has suggested ought to be nuked, along with several other places), and the government of his adopted homeland, who he considers traitors that should be hanged.

I may have a detail or two wrong here or there but I think that is a broadly accurate summary of his positions, which he is welcome to correct or contextualize as he feels appropriate…

Having cleared that up, I was wondering what you lot made of Sarah Palin’s use of the words “blood libel” in her recent interview.

My understanding is that this phrase is more commonly used by Christians against Jews, as the following pasted info from Wikipedia (yes, I know it isn’t the definitive source but it is close enough for our purposes) explains, so to see it used in this way is a little over the top and weird…

Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.

Historically, these claims have, alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration, been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children.

In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints.

In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel.

Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it.

These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time…

The origin of the blood libel can be traced back to the Graeco-Egyptian author Apion, who claimed that Jews sacrificed Greek victims in their temple.

Apion repeated anti-Jewish slurs and “absurd calumnies” first made by Posidonius and Apollonius Molon in the 1st century BCE. This resulted in an attack on Jews in Alexandria in 38 CE in which thousands of Jews died.

Socrates Scholasticus reported that some Jews in a drunken frolic bound a Christian child on a cross in mockery of the death of Christ and scourged him until he died.

zingzing

she really does have a special ability to shoot and step on her own foot while it’s in her mouth.

Mark

…my take is that I don’t want her near any buttons.

btw Chris, there’s an old Jewish notion that the atheist does the work of the LORD by denying every (idolizing) concept of Him

Ruvy is misguided to hold you in contempt.

STM

Mark: “…my take is that I don’t want her near any buttons”.

It’s OK mate, you have to type in a code before it lets you do anything. It automatically assumes anyone operating it has an IQ over 85.

Let’s hope it also asks geography/current affairs questions, like:

“Before I set these things off, is South Africa an actual country or is it simply a geographical location in Africa.”

“Is Africa a country or a continent made up of many (fractured) countries”.

“Name the Prime Minister of the UK, your closest ally”.

“The UK? What’s that, or is it a country that is – and isn’t – part of Europe?”

But 185 ain’t that bad…of course that is a negative 185…that’s right…I have an IQ of minus (-) 185…don’t laugh at that, 185 is a lot better and a lot higher than a negative – 85 which I understand is the average IQ of the average, typical, dumb ass, Aussie, Aussie, maternal fornicator…especially among them commie-lib/simp, commie, pinko-lefty, comm-moon-iss Marxists such as yourself.

Kant fool me…har, har, har.

But geez, I gotta wonder if dem fascist comments editors will arbitrarily and capriciously delete, erase and expunge this comment into oblivion. Cause sometimes they will and sometimes they won’t… this exact same sort of comment. Jess never no wit dem g-eyes gonna dew, yah no whatt eye’m sayin’?

Mark

Gotta give you this, Irv — the Golden Eagle is a hell of a place…good work

Boeke

I scanned one of Irvs posts and I still see NO reason to read any one of them. Of course, they contain no information nor even a discernible assertion, so the only incentive is amusement. They are not amusing, either.

YMMV, of course.

Mark

Boeke, as rep for the Acme Empathy Beanie Co. LLC — the spinner is guaranteed not to get negatively hung-up — I would like to offer you our beta product for a free trial period.

LOL Mark, I guess I do! I am getting increasingly hard of hearing–hence my inclination to keep getting drawn INTO this place. Besides, I miss you all when I’m gone. But lo! a book I was supposed to be reading for work this afternoon beckons. Competing (superior) conversation will make me unmarketable.

Shee-it man, it’s really getting rather difficult to pin you down, you slimy maternal-fornicator – you are a fornicator, aren’t you? And I don’t like that shit. Predictability goes a very long way in satisfying my suspicions, phobias, prejudices and biases, and especially paranoia. But on that very last attribute of mine, I anchor it on the rather banal cliche that even paranoiacs such as myself actually do have enemies. Witness the hate speech and insults and sniping and censorship of me by the vast majority of Blog-o-critter-land-o-world’s vast army of commie-lib/simp, commie pinko-lefty, Marxist morons, idiots, imbeciles and cretins and of course, legions of lunatics. Of whom, the latter lunatics, I am numbered – but of course from the right, as in philosophically, intellectually and morally right and correct.

But that’s not the purpose of this commentary on your # 119. First I assume you went and visited my URL site and read my poem “A Night Out at the Golden Eagle, Syringe Hotel and Fleabag Motel” Do I assume right? Well if you did – thank you, thank you, thank you. (If you didn’t, of course as is to be expected of me – fuck you, fuck you, fuck you!)

I am not a complete computer literate geek/nerd/dweeb/etc., but I am also not completely computer illiterate either. That is to say if I were computer savvy, I’d have to be at least no older than 12 years old. Am slowly getting the drift of it, but am still in the process of building my site. Partly due to ignorance and a lack of computer savvy, but mostly due to my ingrained intellectual sloth and personal, overall laziness.

However, I suggest, if you read any more of my poetry, that you read my current magnum opus “The Once, Mighty Midway Revisited.” I know it’s long by today’s standards, but in actuality, in more literate and belles-lettered times, it’s actually quite short. Nevertheless it is a quick read.

I also suggest you read my “Ophelia” entitled “Some Recent Variations Upon an Eternal Theme: An Ode and a Truly Humble Paean to Ophelia.” Don’t let the title intimidate you – it’s pure fun! And it’s just slightly longer than the “Golden Eagle.” So enjoy.

One last thing, if you do read these, please feel free to comment upon them – as long as you got something good to say about them, of course.

Mark

Irv, I’ve long pondered Pynchon’s koan: what do you call constantly justified paranoia?

Thank you very much Boeke. That was very kind of you, because when I ask others what these acronyms mean I usually get a lot of facetious and sarcastic blather in return. BTW, “blather” in this regard, is utilized here as a euphemism for bullshit – foul, stinky, putrid, malodorous, filthy, disgusting bullshit!.

PS But in spite of this kindness of yours, you’re still a goddamn commie m….rf..k.r. Nothing personal, it’s just that I am a f..k..g inveterate ingrate. And of course, you are what you are. Sorry, but I can’t compromise my YMMV creds.

Dear comrade-ette Athena, looks like I messed up and thanked the wrong person. So I humbly wish to make amends and thank you for your kindness.

As for that commie-lib/simp little twerp, IMHO, I was somewhat surprised that he would show that sort of civility, especially to me since he has constantly and consistently bad mouthed me – in fact, it’s been my experience, IMHO, that he’s a real f..k..g anal aperture.

In comment 118, you said that, before you had written it, your IQ was negative 195, and that while you were writing it, your IQ had become negative 185, and you concluded that you’d lost ten IQ points. It actually represents a gain of 10 points. You also stated in that comment that a negative 185 IQ was higher than a negative 85 IQ. It’s actually lower by several standard deviations–not that mollusks use IQ very often to determine social standing.

Again, you just got to show me up and make me look like a real, insensitive cad and a true MMMM, that’s an acronym for MISERABLE, MEAN, MISANTHROPIC MOTHER……R Sheeit, Im so f…k..g clever and witty, I jess kant get enough of myself.

Well at any rate, again thanks for the info, and might I add that I say that truly reluctantly and begrudgingly, being the true MMMM that I truly am.

My, my…aren’t we picky, picky, tedious and petty, and of course, see every damn branch and leaf of every damn tree in the supreme-being, imprecation forest so very quite accurately and precisely but miss the entirety of the supreme-being imprecation, forest itself; today?

As we were rather fond and wont of saying in the Marine Corps; a pubic hair’s (precisely, the rather vulgar term for a woman’s pudenda which was used to measure entirely miniscule and microscopic tolerances) breath right on, but a f..k..g country mile off.

I could say that I failed to understand the basic algebraic concepts of plus and minus numbers, of positive and negative, which is also at the basis of the most simple and basic levels of bookkeeping and accounting imaginable; solely based on my f..k..g negative IQ. Or rather, that because I am so f..k..g stupid I never learned those most basic concepts of mathematics when I was in elementary and junior high schools, basically for two reasons: one, because I am a product of the worthless, liberal, governmental, anti-intelletual, dumb-as-a-rock, brainless, moronic, idiotic, imbecilic, cretinous statist, collectivist public schools; and secondly, because I have a negative IQ and therefore I too am also dumb-as-a-rock, or is that dumber than a rock?

But I don’t see how you didn’t get the joke, unless, of course, you too possess a negative IQ just like me.

Now if you are somewhat in a quandary as to the meaning of all this, feel free to ask Roger whether it’ll be covered in the final or not. Or better yet ask Cindy if aliens from outer space have spawned with humans just recently or not?